Talk Elections

Title: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: muon2 on September 15, 2010, 07:27:43 am

This now the general thread to discuss state redistricting of the US House. The goal of this thread and its links is to consider possible scenarios based on the politics of the particular state and who controls the process.

If a particular state gets started up here with enough activity I'll split it into its own thread. I'll also keep a list of links to those separate threads. I'll leave the large Dave's Redistricting App thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.0) for more fanciful redistricting ideas using that tool.

The Democrats should give up on the House, and concentrate on other races, including those that affect redistricting.

This was one of the reasons why I didnt want Obama winning in 2008. 2010 was a redistricting year, that shape politics for a decade. But no, instead Democrats ceded it all to Republicans just so we can have a nominal "D" sitting in the White House.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: muon2 on October 25, 2010, 10:43:50 pm

Bumped and stickied to highlight the changes to the thread and new links.

A state-by-state overview of redistricting rules and partisan control would be super-duper-cool.

Rules? There are rules for redistricting?

The only thing that South Carolina law requires is that the General Assembly must redistrict its Congressional delegation after a census. What laws we had concerning dividing up the General Assembly after a new Census got thrown out in the 1960's (1 Senator per county, Representatives apportioned to the counties using the Hare quota) except that the size of our State Senate is still set as equal to the number of counties and the State House of Representatives is fixed at 124 Representatives in our constitution.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Torie on November 11, 2010, 10:22:22 pm

Here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/11/a_preview_of_2012_redistricting_107924.html) is Sean Trende's crystal ball on how he thinks redistricting will play out. I don't think he understands the lacuna of state laws well enough however. For example, he chats about doing away with Peters' district, MI-9, and that will be hard to do, because CD's in Michigan can't cross county lines, if there is a way to avoid that that comports with federal law. At least that is my understanding from the 2001 redistricting, and I assume the Michigan law has not changed. So it will be hard to push Oakland and Macomb County Democrats into the black Wayne County CD's. Plus, the Gross Pointe towns, which are GOP, and in Wayne County, will still have to be "trapped" in a black CD.

And if Minnesota loses a seat (Sean seems to think it is still ahead by a nose over Missouri as to which state loses a seat, although I have read on this Forum the opposite), I strongly suspect that what will happen is that the courts will combine MN-7 and MN-8 into one district, and the new Pubbie in MN-8 will go by-by, losing to Peterson who represents MN-7.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 11, 2010, 10:29:57 pm

MI-11 and MI-12 cross county lines despite the fact that both could be confined to one county.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Torie on November 11, 2010, 10:36:23 pm

MI-11 and MI-12 cross county lines despite the fact that both could be confined to one county.

Yes, that is because in both instances, the CD's ran out of room to expand in a county, or in the case of MI-12, if it expanded further into Macomb, that would force another CD to cross county lines. But the two black districts can expand west in Wayne County, taking territory from McCotter's (sp) district. That is the problem.

Actually, having looked at the Michigan map (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Congress_state_16757_7.pdf), I take your point as to MI-12. It could have expanded further into Macomb, rather than hop over into Oakland, and perhaps not have forced the district to the north to cross a county line, but actually not, since I see the district to the north in Macomb and counties further north, does not cross any other county lines. Yes, McCotter's district could take some of Dingell's territory, but then will Dingell's district cross more county lines? Yes, it is a headache.

I guess the bottom line is that three CD's in the Detroit metro area need to cross county lines, and right now it is MI-11, MI-12, MI-15, and the GOP will have the opportunity to pick up to three different CD's to cross county lines if it wishes.

End of discursive ramble.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: True Federalist on December 19, 2010, 06:43:35 pm

The conventional wisdom on this board has been that South Carolina would have to draw two majority-minority districts that would elect Democrats, but there was an article in The State today that indicates that both Clyburn and the GOP are thinking that the General Assembly will be able to draw only one such district and carve things up so that the other six would elect Republicans.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: ElectionAtlas on December 20, 2010, 03:03:00 pm

Note - I added this page (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Redistricting) to the wiki as a possible way of organizing this information. If it doesn't work, I can see if there are alternate ideas.

Thanks,Dave

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2010, 11:55:00 pm

Note - I added this page (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Redistricting) to the wiki as a possible way of organizing this information. If it doesn't work, I can see if there are alternate ideas.

Thanks,Dave

How did you make that page? I would love to know how to make a county and congressional district version for Washington.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: muon2 on December 28, 2010, 05:48:56 am

Note - I added this page (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Redistricting) to the wiki as a possible way of organizing this information. If it doesn't work, I can see if there are alternate ideas.

Thanks,Dave

How did you make that page? I would love to know how to make a county and congressional district version for Washington.

If it helps, I've edited the link for WA and included a page for the Redistricting Commission. You can click on the state to see how it's set up. I'm planning to add all the other states in the coming days.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2010, 04:15:50 pm

Note - I added this page (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Redistricting) to the wiki as a possible way of organizing this information. If it doesn't work, I can see if there are alternate ideas.

Thanks,Dave

How did you make that page? I would love to know how to make a county and congressional district version for Washington.

If it helps, I've edited the link for WA and included a page for the Redistricting Commission. You can click on the state to see how it's set up. I'm planning to add all the other states in the coming days.

Well, thanks. I was referring to the clickable map Dave uploaded, though. :)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on December 29, 2010, 01:09:22 pm

Georgia...not all that interesting I guess.

1. New Republican district in Atlanta suburbs.2. Throw Macon and Valdosta into the 2nd.

The only question is, I think, whether they try to use Kingston and Broun's R+15 districts to crack John Barrow's 12th. You can easily knock the black % down to about 32%.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: ElectionAtlas on January 03, 2011, 01:16:54 pm

Note - I added this page (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Redistricting) to the wiki as a possible way of organizing this information. If it doesn't work, I can see if there are alternate ideas.

Thanks,Dave

How did you make that page? I would love to know how to make a county and congressional district version for Washington.

Hi,I installed an add-on feature for the wikimedia to support imagemaps. The coordinates for the polygon shapes are x y x y x y etc. with the link to the desired page at the end. See code below. I generated the coordinates with a small image map tool on the mac. It was still rather manual - essentially drawing lines around each shape. I have the counties image map for Washington and just added it here (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Washington#Counties).Enjoy,Dave---

There's a Republican PVI on this; just looking at the numbers its 51-49 one way or another. Amazing how you can't even find a town that's more than 55% McCain

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 09, 2011, 10:18:38 pm

Hey guys, when you're posting maps that you drew in DRA version 2, can you please edit them in Paint so that they don't have a bunch of white space in the edges? This is only really a problem with statewide maps; they show up bigger when you post them if you eliminate the white space.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on January 11, 2011, 03:01:19 pm

Is there any point to drawing an Arizona map in DRA, or is the population balance in Maricopa county so out of whack that its pointless?

It looks like 1, 7, and 8 could remain just about the same, while 2 might have to shed some of its portions around Glendale, and then 3-6 split into 5 districts rather than 4.

Is there any point to drawing an Arizona map in DRA, or is the population balance in Maricopa county so out of whack that its pointless?

Yeah. Pinal, too - on DRA it looks like the first can/should drop all of Casas Grandes. Not sure that will work in practice, the monster growth is going to have been mostly in the sixth district portion.Then again... with Arizona's massive overestimate of their growth, it's reasonable to expect the overestimate to be concentrated in the massive growth parts too, ie for Maricopa to have fewer people in relation to the rest of the state than the estimates claim.Anyways, the biggest growth in Maricopa is on the western and eastern ends. That probably means the 2nd and 6th retreat outwards, and the shed areas plus 3rd and 5th are drawn into three new districts, with the 4th mostly left alone. The 2nd might also pick up La Paz County from the 7th.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on January 11, 2011, 03:15:50 pm

Is there any point to drawing an Arizona map in DRA, or is the population balance in Maricopa county so out of whack that its pointless?

Yeah. Pinal, too - on DRA it looks like the first can/should drop all of Casas Grandes. Not sure that will work in practice, the monster growth is going to have been mostly in the sixth district portion.Then again... with Arizona's massive overestimate of their growth, it's reasonable to expect the overestimate to be concentrated in the massive growth parts too, ie for Maricopa to have fewer people in relation to the rest of the state than the estimates claim.Anyways, the biggest growth in Maricopa is on the western and eastern ends. That probably means the 2nd and 6th retreat outwards, and the shed areas plus 3rd and 5th are drawn into three new districts, with the 4th mostly left alone. The 2nd might also pick up La Paz County from the 7th.

That's kind of what I figured would happen as well, with the 5th (which covers Tempe and Scottsdale) essentially split into 2.

I'm guessing that Schweikert would run in what would be a fairly heavy Republican 9th (the Scottsdale district where he lives). The new 5th would be anchored in Tempe and Pinal county, probably would be swingy at a guess, but I believe Tempe is Dem leaning.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2011, 03:24:48 am

Moderator's note:

I saw that a thread on CO-7 redistricting was transferred to this board from Congressional elections. In order to keep some sanity while tracking everyone's redistricting ideas, I merged it into the existing CO thread. Feel free to check the OP in this thread to find links to all the state threads that have been started on the board. If you start one that doesn't exist yet, I'll link it up as well.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #ByeDon2020 on June 07, 2011, 01:41:14 am

Does anyone know where we can go to find the newly drawn congressional maps? Like, is there one big website anywhere that shows them? I realize not all states have made their maps, but for the ones that have, just so we can see the new congressional districts? Thanks :)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Bacon King on June 07, 2011, 04:00:59 am

Does anyone know where we can go to find the newly drawn congressional maps? Like, is there one big website anywhere that shows them? I realize not all states have made their maps, but for the ones that have, just so we can see the new congressional districts? Thanks :)

The state redistricting pages on Ballotpedia (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_Legislative_and_Congressional_Redistricting_after_the_2010_Census) are pretty comprehensive.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on June 11, 2011, 09:18:29 am

Richfield • Republicans proposed Friday two redistricting plans that could further reduce the number of already far-outnumbered Democrats in Utah’s Legislature and congressional delegation.

Two Democratic seats in the state Senate would likely disappear under a proposal unveiled by Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, at hearings of the Legislature’s Redistricting Committee in Richfield and Ephraim. Republicans already hold a 22-7 edge in the Senate.

Republicans also floated a second major proposal to divide Salt Lake County among all four new U.S. House districts, which would dilute Democratic votes in their one stronghold in the state. That could make it more difficult to re-elect Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson if he runs again for the House.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 25, 2011, 08:33:20 pm

Since there's a lot of talk about lawsuits, I thought a look back at 2000's lawsuits might be informative. Here's a very exhaustive list (http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/redsum2000/redsum2000.htm) of cases last time around.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on July 13, 2011, 10:31:31 am

Homosexuals want VRA districts.

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_18462724?nclick_check=1

"Communities of interest such as Latinos and African-Americans are protected to ensure proper representation," said Mario Guerrero, government affairs director for Equality California, a gay advocacy group. "We want the same opportunity to elect representatives from our community."

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 13, 2011, 10:42:21 am

"Communities of interest such as Latinos and African-Americans are protected to ensure proper representation," said Mario Guerrero, government affairs director for Equality California, a gay advocacy group. "We want the same opportunity to elect representatives from our community."

But San Francisco already has its own district. What more do they want?

There may be no obvious answer to this given that the world was much less internet-based in previous rounds, but does anyone have any idea when mainstream sources like National Journal or even just Wikipedia will start putting up pages with demographics, PVI etc. about the new districts? Will they wait until the whole country's finished?

Given the obsessiveness of Wikipedia contributors, I'm a little surprised for example that the new districts don't seem to have their own Wikipedia pages even in states like Arkansas where the process is basically finished.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 09, 2011, 05:42:05 pm

DKE is creating Google maps of new districts. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/09/1013737/-Mapping-the-New-CDs)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 12, 2011, 09:51:14 pm

"Communities of interest such as Latinos and African-Americans are protected to ensure proper representation," said Mario Guerrero, government affairs director for Equality California, a gay advocacy group. "We want the same opportunity to elect representatives from our community."

But San Francisco already has its own district. What more do they want?

I don't think there are enough Gays in San Francisco to create a majority district for them. Maybe if it was entirely centered in the Castro District, but that wouldn't exactly be a large enough number of constituents.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on October 26, 2011, 10:55:07 pm

"Communities of interest such as Latinos and African-Americans are protected to ensure proper representation," said Mario Guerrero, government affairs director for Equality California, a gay advocacy group. "We want the same opportunity to elect representatives from our community."

But San Francisco already has its own district. What more do they want?

I don't think there are enough Gays in San Francisco to create a majority district for them. Maybe if it was entirely centered in the Castro District, but that wouldn't exactly be a large enough number of constituents.

Also, there must be a completed version of this one (2008 presidential by new CDs) somewhere, but you get all the info from these twohttps://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=6528https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=6941

Actually, looking at it I think that's not the final Kansas map in either, but it's a minor alteration (the urban KC district goes a little less far to the west, a little further to the south instead.)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Miles on July 28, 2012, 08:08:10 am

Thanks, the gallery can be a bitch to search. If ther is any way to display all submissions from a single poster (other than yourself) I've never noticed it.

The gallery can be searched by keywords, but many of the maps users have posted are on other websites. Even those that have used the gallery often don't use keywords. For instance everyone of my maps has a keyword of redistricting and the name of the state. But as you note, I didn't include my name as a keyword so you can't search on that.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: NY Jew on July 28, 2012, 11:26:04 pm

"Communities of interest such as Latinos and African-Americans are protected to ensure proper representation," said Mario Guerrero, government affairs director for Equality California, a gay advocacy group. "We want the same opportunity to elect representatives from our community."

I bet those same gay anti semites would be the strongest opposition to a Jewish congressional district in the only area it's possible to do so Southern Brooklyn. (could be a 60%+ McCain seat)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: The scissors of false economy on July 29, 2012, 01:36:41 am

"Communities of interest such as Latinos and African-Americans are protected to ensure proper representation," said Mario Guerrero, government affairs director for Equality California, a gay advocacy group. "We want the same opportunity to elect representatives from our community."

I bet those same gay anti semites would be the strongest opposition to a Jewish congressional district in the only area it's possible to do so Southern Brooklyn. (could be a 60%+ McCain seat)

Yellow voted for John McCain by 114 votes. Blue is 30% Hispanic and 28% Black (36% Anglo).Neither is quite at maxpack - had to introduce some slight compromises to keep the western remnant district contiguous.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Sbane on February 01, 2013, 04:33:27 pm

Haven't saved it, but I recall that green, red and purple are eerily alike, not by design, in electoral figures though green is less white than the others (on account of Waterbury). Slightly more Democratic than the state, all of them.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Sol on September 28, 2013, 01:45:26 pm

Muon2- Please add Georgia to the list in the first post:https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130047.0

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: muon2 on September 28, 2013, 03:27:50 pm

If I were a Republican consultant, and I was looking at states like Virginia, Florida, and Georgia which are trending toward the Democrats, I would strongly urge the GOP in those states to follow North Carolina's example and remove the governor from the redistricting process when they have full control over both the legislature and the governor's mansion.

And this advice is especially acute for the Virginia GOP -the 2017 election cycle may be the last time they can win all statewide offices from the governor to the attorney general before shifting demographics make it too difficult for them to win statewide at any level. A possible scenario could be a deal allowing the governor to run for two consecutive terms in exchange for relinquishing veto power over any redistricting plan issued by the General Assembly.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon on June 21, 2015, 04:57:50 pm

North Dakota with 2 districts, gerrymandered for republicans:

()

1. 53-45 McCain2. 54-44 McCain

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jocallag on August 03, 2015, 09:27:38 am

I recently wrote the attached article for the Selous Foundation. It makes the often overlooked point that so-called "independent commissions" and the courts generally favor Democrats if you look at the results of the 2012 redistricting. In fact, these appointed officials (who are not directly responsible to voters like legislators) produced more than twice as many US House gains for Democrats as did the states controlled by Democrat legislators.

Unfortunately former NRCC Chairman and VA GOP Congressman Tom Davis has just joined with former Democrat Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (story is below) in a major effort to get these appointed commissions passed throughout the nation. So I am sure there will be a major move to get some in the GOP to support an "independent" redistricting commission. The California model commission Tauscher thinks is so wonderful caused the GOP to lose four more US House seats and produce a 38-15 overwhelmingly liberal congressional delegation. It also increased the huge lead the Democrats had in the State Senate and Assembly.

Here is my latest article for the Selous Foundation which debunks the belief that appointed commissions and the courts are fair and independent in redistricting I would appreciate your comments and suggestions

Experience Shows that There is no Such Thing as an “Independent Redistricting Commission”

The Democrats six seat edge in 2012 was largely due to its five seat gain in the nine states with appointed commissions (which controlled 99 U.S. House seats) and its seven seat gain in the nine states, where the courts intervened and drew the map for 120 U.S. House seats. This means that in 2012, for maybe the first time in U.S. history, appointed rather than elected officials decided the boundaries of a majority of (219) U.S. House districts.

By Jay O’Callaghan l July 29, 2015

The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission upholding Arizona’s congressional map as drawn by its appointed redistricting commission has set off a wave of support for this concept in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, experience shows that such commission usually favor Democrats progressive political agenda over Republicans freedom agenda as did the Arizona commission which created a 5-4 Democrat U.S. House plan in 2012, despite a Romney 53-44% victory and a 52-43% 2012 vote for Republican candidates for Congress.

Most of these redistricting commissions are chosen, like the one in Arizona, by left-leaning lawyers (in this case from Arizona’s judicial nominating commission) according to Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He points out that, “if you are going to have gerrymandering of congressional districts, it might as well be done by a state legislature, which is accountable to the people, rather than a commission like this,” which is accountable to no one.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, “some of the commissioners were motivated in part in some of the line drawing decisions by a desire to improve Democratic prospects in the affected districts,” and that the Commission retained a mapping consultant who “had worked for Democratic, independent, and nonpartisan campaigns, but no Republican campaigns.”

Moreover, in the Arizona decision, SCOTUS strove to redefine the word “legislature” to include unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic bodies like Independent Redistricting Commissions.

The Arizona experience was repeated across the nation according to a study by this author of 2012 U.S. House election results and what method of redistricting was used as reported in the 2014 Almanac of American Politics. Democrats gained five U.S. House seats and won the 99 U.S. House seats created by appointed redistricting commissions in nine states by an overwhelming 66-33 in 2012.

As long time almanac author and political expert Michael Barone points out, the Republican advantage in redistricting is overstated. “Republicans after 2010 controlled redistricting in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina (138 House seats). But Democrats controlled redistricting in Illinois and Maryland and, by successfully gaming purportedly nonpartisan redistricting commissions, in California and Arizona (88 House seats)… Remember that despite Republicans’ redistricting advantage after the 2000 Census, Democrats won majorities in the House in 2006 and 2008. If opinion changes, redistricting doesn’t matter.”

In fact, a look at who finally created the 2012 district plans in each state after many courts ended up intervening in the process shows that Republicans only ended up drawing the map (through their control of the Governor and state legislatures) in 15 states with 149 seats. This is only a little more than one third of the 435 US House seats. The GOP won 110-39 in these states for a gain of seven with the Democrats losing ten.

But overall this GOP gain was wiped out easily in states which used appointed redistricting commissions, had Democrat control of the legislature, adopted bi-partisan compromises or where a court ended up drawing the map. Democrats actually gained six seats in the 43 states which redistricted their U.S. House seats. They gained five seats in appointed commission states, three seats in Democrat controlled states, one seat in states with bi-partisan compromises, and seven seats in states where the courts finally ended up drawing the districts.

The Democrats six seat edge in 2012 was largely due to its five seat gain in the nine states with appointed commissions (which controlled 99 U.S. House seats) and its seven seat gain in the nine states, where the courts intervened and drew the map for 120 U.S. House seats. This means that in 2012, for maybe the first time in U.S. history, appointed rather than elected officials decided the boundaries of a majority of (219) U.S. House districts.

This decided edge for Democrats through mainly appointed judges and commissions in deciding district lines is highlighted by the takeover of the process by the Florida Supreme Court in its recent decision ordering the GOP-controlled legislature to redraw the lines in eight districts. The court ordered the legislature to use a map prepared by experts from the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and another Democrat judge gave the legislature only 75 days to redraw it.

The court’s 5-2 decision was made mainly by the same judges that voted in 2000 for a lengthy recount in key Democrat counties to help elect Al Gore President until it was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The mainly Democrat appointed courts have used the new and confusing Florida “Fair District” constitutional amendment to pressure the GOP-controlled legislature to draw a map that helped the Democrats gain four seats in Florida in 2012. Some experts believe that the court may takeover the entire map and help Democrats win a majority of the state’s once heavily GOP congressional delegation.

As Michael Barone said, “the fact is that supposedly nonpartisan redistricting commissions are not going to get rid of polarization (which results from voter attitudes) or gridlock (which results from the executive’s low negotiating skills).” But the growing use of these appointed commissions with appointed judges may give the Democrats a reasonable chance to win the U.S. House after 2020.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jay O’Callaghan has worked extensively with issues involving the U.S. Census Bureau including serving as a professional staff member for the House Government Reform Census Subcommittee, as a senior legislative analyst for the Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee and for two U.S. House members. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

Former East Bay Rep. Ellen Tauscher announced Tuesday that she's bringing on a former colleague from the other side of the aisle to co-chair her effort to export California's citizen-redistricting model to the rest of the nation.

Tauscher, a Democrat formerly of Alamo who represented part of the East Bay from 1997 to 2009, said former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., will co-chair YouDrawTheLines2021, an organization she formed to take reapportionment power away from state legislatures and give it to independent commissions. She launched the effort in the wake of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Arizona's independent redistricting commission -- and by extension, California's as well.

In a statement issued Tuesday, Tauscher said she's thrilled to share the group's leadership with Davis. "Independent nonpartisan redistricting commissions, like the one we have in California, create the opportunity for more competitive districts and for more moderates of both parties to get elected to Congress," she said.

Davis said the effort is "critical to getting Congress working again."

"Creating independent nonpartisan citizen advisory commissions in even five or six states before the 2020 census could make all the difference to the make-up of Congress in the next decade," Davis said. "Ellen and I will be reaching out to our former colleagues and like-minded state elected officials of both parties in these key states to put the wheels in motion to get this done over the next five years."

The project will focus on passing ballot initiatives in key states over the next three election cycles to approve the formation of independent, nonpartisan citizen redistricting commissions based on California's model, which was passed in 2008.

Tauscher left her House seat in 2009 to become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, serving under then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. She held that position until February 2012, when she became special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense, remaining in that post until August 2012. She now splits her time between San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on August 03, 2015, 04:30:57 pm

I recently wrote the attached article for the Selous Foundation. It makes the often overlooked point that so-called "independent commissions" and the courts generally favor Democrats if you look at the results of the 2012 redistricting. In fact, these appointed officials (who are not directly responsible to voters like legislators) produced more than twice as many US House gains for Democrats as did the states controlled by Democrat legislators.

Unfortunately former NRCC Chairman and VA GOP Congressman Tom Davis has just joined with former Democrat Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (story is below) in a major effort to get these appointed commissions passed throughout the nation. So I am sure there will be a major move to get some in the GOP to support an "independent" redistricting commission. The California model commission Tauscher thinks is so wonderful caused the GOP to lose four more US House seats and produce a 38-15 overwhelmingly liberal congressional delegation. It also increased the huge lead the Democrats had in the State Senate and Assembly.

Here is my latest article for the Selous Foundation which debunks the belief that appointed commissions and the courts are fair and independent in redistricting I would appreciate your comments and suggestions

A bit hackish in style.

A problem with "independent" or "citizen" redistricting commissions is that they can be led by legal or other expert advisors. In California, a specific requirement for members was that they reflect the "diversity" of the state, and also be appreciative of that diversity. Torie was rejected because there were other candidates just as qualified, but not as fair-skinned. The commission was not subject to Proposition 209.

In Arizona, the party leaders in the legislature chose four members, who then chose the chairman from a list of five persons screened by a judicial selection committee who were "independent". One of the "independents" had a framed picture of her with Nancy Pelosi. Another was the head of the Arizona ACLU, who was said to make the Democratic Party seem like Barry Goldwater because they were so far to the right of him. Colleen Mathis was the least worst.

They decided to have a Republican and Democratic counsel. The two Democratic members and Mathis chose the Republican counsel on a 3:2 vote. As you noted, the mapping consultant had only done work for Democratic candidates. Moreover, they had never done redistricting work, but had specialized in targeting voters who would vote Democratic.

Because the redistricting commission was created under the constitution, it was not subject to the open-meeting requirements that other agencies were subject to. Mathis drew one map at her house over a weekend with the help of a mapping consultant.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jocallag on August 03, 2015, 05:02:23 pm

Thanks I think those are all excellent points. What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of many commission supporters and the plaintiffs in Florida (Common Cause, LWV). They act like they are the only ones with pure motives when in fact they have a political agenda to elect more Democrats. The media coverage has been terribly one sided.There is actually less transparency in Florida redistricting due to the so called Fair Districts. The plaintiffs have presented countless maps in the congressional case but it is very difficult to find their maps in a kmz or doj file so you can really analyze them. The latest plaintiffs map that the Florida Supreme Court suggested the legislature use was produced by Democrat party consultants. None of the plaintiffs maps supporting a east-west minority congressional district from Tallahassee to Jacksonville are easily available in a kmz or doj format on the internet. They have in fact never been filed in the legislature's two sessions on congressional redistricting. As a result I have not been able to find their maps at the Florida redistricting committee websites so they have not been subjected to the intense public scrutiny that the legislature's maps have received. All the legislature's maps are at this website and can be seen down to the block level. You cant say that the plaintiffs have been as transparent. They dont even show what the political performance for every district is in the map they recently proposed. And I don't believe I or anyone else should have to wade through pages of legal briefs to find it.If anyone can find a place on the Internet where I can find a doj file or kmz file for all the maps that the plaintiffs have proposed. please reply to my post. I am especially interested in the latest map which the Florida Supreme Court suggested that they use as a guide. I think that this information should be available to everyone not just a few lawyers, consultants and academics.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on August 03, 2015, 08:44:30 pm

Thanks I think those are all excellent points. What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of many commission supporters and the plaintiffs in Florida (Common Cause, LWV). They act like they are the only ones with pure motives when in fact they have a political agenda to elect more Democrats. The media coverage has been terribly one sided.There is actually less transparency in Florida redistricting due to the so called Fair Districts. The plaintiffs have presented countless maps in the congressional case but it is very difficult to find their maps in a kmz or doj file so you can really analyze them. The latest plaintiffs map that the Florida Supreme Court suggested the legislature use was produced by Democrat party consultants. None of the plaintiffs maps supporting a east-west minority congressional district from Tallahassee to Jacksonville are easily available in a kmz or doj format on the internet. They have in fact never been filed in the legislature's two sessions on congressional redistricting. As a result I have not been able to find their maps at the Florida redistricting committee websites so they have not been subjected to the intense public scrutiny that the legislature's maps have received. All the legislature's maps are at this website and can be seen down to the block level. You cant say that the plaintiffs have been as transparent. They dont even show what the political performance for every district is in the map they recently proposed. And I don't believe I or anyone else should have to wade through pages of legal briefs to find it.If anyone can find a place on the Internet where I can find a doj file or kmz file for all the maps that the plaintiffs have proposed. please reply to my post. I am especially interested in the latest map which the Florida Supreme Court suggested that they use as a guide. I think that this information should be available to everyone not just a few lawyers, consultants and academics.

I think the LWV has been taken over by the Democrats, or perhaps they are guileless dupes.

In Britain, political parties are expected to make representations to the boundary commission. If they didn't few other persons would, since the average person doesn't really care. But the political parties have to frame their arguments in terms of something other than raw politics.

And even if the Florida litigants were to propose a map, they wouldn't be obligated to turn over all their communication that went into creating the plan.

Courts end up being the least transparent. The congressional plan drawn by the court in Texas, put the boundary of the central San Antonio district, TX-20, one block outside Joaquin Castro's house. Immediately, Charlie Gonzales, the 7-term representative from TX-20 announced he was retiring (his father Henry Gonzales had served 19 terms before that). And Castro announced he was running in TX-20, rather than TX-35 that he had been running for.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jocallag on August 04, 2015, 06:49:54 pm

Appointed commissions and courts controlled the drawing of 219 out of 435 US House districts in the last redistricting cycle. Elected Republican officials controlled less than one third with Democrat elected officials the rest. The fact that these appointed officials and courts generally favored Democrats in this cycle was the main reason for the eight seat gain Democrats had in 2012.

As for transparency I have still received no word from Common Cause or the League as to where I can find on the Internet a kmz file of the map that they proposed for Florida congressional districts that the Florida Supreme Court endorsed in its recent decision.

Today, these two organizations demanded more oversight of the Florida legislative staff while they prepare a base map for next week's special session. The lack of transparency has really been on their side as I wonder what oversight there was of their map which was prepared by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: GMantis on January 08, 2017, 09:26:50 am

Appointed commissions and courts controlled the drawing of 219 out of 435 US House districts in the last redistricting cycle. Elected Republican officials controlled less than one third with Democrat elected officials the rest. The fact that these appointed officials and courts generally favored Democrats in this cycle was the main reason for the eight seat gain Democrats had in 2012.

Where exactly did you get these figures? In reality, the redistricting of 218 districts was held by the Republicans, 46 by the Democrats and the other 164 by independent commissions and courts. And the actual reason the Democrats gained eight seats was because they did much better in the 2012 election, actually winning the popular vote instead of losing by 7% as in 2010. In fact, Republican Gerrymandering cost the Democrats at least six seats (https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/redistricting-and-congressional-control-following-2012-election).

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: catographer on February 19, 2017, 03:08:56 am

Made my own redistricted United States. Didn't pay attention to VRA (but coincidentally it probably is respected by my lines). I focused mostly on aesthetic (whether the lines looked nice, ik subjective but :D) and compactness (avoided gerrymandering). I used Dave's Redistricting App, so only 2008 results are available. But I guesstimated 2012 and 2016, and unlike how Obama lost CDs in 2012, he wins them in mine. My districts appear to be more proportional to the national popular vote than current CDs.

Here are the CDs by 2008 presidential election results:()

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Wolverine22 on May 12, 2017, 03:58:52 pm

Is there a plausible way that New Mexico Democrats can draw Steve Pearce out of office in 2020 and have 3 Democratic seats?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Gass3268 on May 12, 2017, 04:20:10 pm

All three also have a Democratic average vote in DRA as well. Could unpack the 1st to make the second more safe if you wanted.

About what would this have looked like with 2016 numbers?

Because of the split it is hard to tell, but all three would vote for her, but the 2nd is cutting it really close, only by 5 thousand votes. But because of turnout, that still is almost a good 3 point margin of victory. The first had about a 20 thousand vote margin, while the third was won by 14 thousand.

Not too bad of a map (in voting Democratic on the Presidental level), considering I was using 8-year-old numbers to draw the districts.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Wolverine22 on May 13, 2017, 04:53:40 pm

All three also have a Democratic average vote in DRA as well. Could unpack the 1st to make the second more safe if you wanted.

From what I read about the 2011 redistricting, this plan would face serious opposition from southern New Mexico Democrats and Republicans alike. Apparently the Democrats would rather concede a seat to the Republicans so SNM can have its own seat rather than lock Republicans out of power in New Mexico.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: mathstatman on May 23, 2017, 07:15:04 pm

General question: Didn't the Congressional Black Caucus and the GOP House leadership work out a scheme, some years ago, to essentially guarantee a certain number of Black-held seats by creating several heavily Democratic districts, essentially leaving the rest of the districts to their own (white, Republican) devices?

It seems to have worked, as Black representation in the House essentially equals the Black share of the national population, with 49 Black representatives (including 3 Republicans) out of 435, and of course the GOP has held the house 18 of the last 22 years.

It is conceivable--likely, even, that Democratic schemes to limit gerrymandering could reduce the number of Black-held districts?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Trends are real, and I f**king hate it on May 23, 2017, 08:49:30 pm

I think that's just the product of VRA rules.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on May 23, 2017, 10:57:05 pm

General question: Didn't the Congressional Black Caucus and the GOP House leadership work out a scheme, some years ago, to essentially guarantee a certain number of Black-held seats by creating several heavily Democratic districts, essentially leaving the rest of the districts to their own (white, Republican) devices?

It seems to have worked, as Black representation in the House essentially equals the Black share of the national population, with 49 Black representatives (including 3 Republicans) out of 435, and of course the GOP has held the house 18 of the last 22 years.

It is conceivable--likely, even, that Democratic schemes to limit gerrymandering could reduce the number of Black-held districts?

Well, yes. The Dem party used to slice black communities into smithereens in order to elect White liberals. North Carolina Democrats referred to this tactic as bleaching.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: MarkD on May 27, 2017, 10:14:56 am

General question: Didn't the Congressional Black Caucus and the GOP House leadership work out a scheme, some years ago, to essentially guarantee a certain number of Black-held seats by creating several heavily Democratic districts, essentially leaving the rest of the districts to their own (white, Republican) devices?

It seems to have worked, as Black representation in the House essentially equals the Black share of the national population, with 49 Black representatives (including 3 Republicans) out of 435, and of course the GOP has held the house 18 of the last 22 years.

It is conceivable--likely, even, that Democratic schemes to limit gerrymandering could reduce the number of Black-held districts?

I never heard of a deal between them, but I did read about many Democratic state legislators being very pleased and impressed with how much the Justice Dept, under President Bush 41, was eager to help, and even insist, that more black-majority districts were going to be drawn during 1991 than ever before.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Pro-Life Single Issue Voter on May 29, 2017, 12:50:37 pm

Do we think that Republicans are likely to draw Jim Cooper out of a seat following 2020? It is really easy to carve up Nashville given how Republican the surrounding districts are (and since Nashville is actually only moderately Democratic-leaning itself).

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Gass3268 on May 31, 2017, 08:37:05 am

Do we think that Republicans are likely to draw Jim Cooper out of a seat following 2020? It is really easy to carve up Nashville given how Republican the surrounding districts are (and since Nashville is actually only moderately Democratic-leaning itself).

I don't know if I'd call 60-34 a moderately Democratic leaning county, but yes. We can probably assume that unless the Supreme Court rules partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional the Nashville, Louisville, and maybe Kansas City seats will be ripped apart.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon on June 08, 2017, 12:32:49 am

This is an example of how the republicans could take out Cooper. The New 5th is McCain 52.5%, The New 6th is McCain 53.4%. The other seats remain unchanged.

() (http://imgur.com/VllBtev)

(Just click where the image should be if it doesn't come up right)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: publicunofficial on June 08, 2017, 03:53:10 am

Do we think that Republicans are likely to draw Jim Cooper out of a seat following 2020? It is really easy to carve up Nashville given how Republican the surrounding districts are (and since Nashville is actually only moderately Democratic-leaning itself).

I don't know if I'd call 60-34 a moderately Democratic leaning county, but yes. We can probably assume that unless the Supreme Court rules partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional the Nashville, Louisville, and maybe Kansas City seats will be ripped apart.

The one thing that often prevents it is incumbents being very demanding about their district boundaries. For example, if MO-04 took on more of Kansas City to crack it, Vicki Hartzlter could lose in the primary to a Kansas City-based Republican.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon on June 08, 2017, 08:44:09 am

Do we think that Republicans are likely to draw Jim Cooper out of a seat following 2020? It is really easy to carve up Nashville given how Republican the surrounding districts are (and since Nashville is actually only moderately Democratic-leaning itself).

I don't know if I'd call 60-34 a moderately Democratic leaning county, but yes. We can probably assume that unless the Supreme Court rules partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional the Nashville, Louisville, and maybe Kansas City seats will be ripped apart.

The one thing that often prevents it is incumbents being very demanding about their district boundaries. For example, if MO-04 took on more of Kansas City to crack it, Vicki Hartzlter could lose in the primary to a Kansas City-based Republican.

Kansas City is also Dem enough that when you split it up, unless you completely throw out any semblance to the current district scheme, there is still a seat that is like McCain +3, thus you don't have a completely guaranteed 8-1 Map.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Wolverine22 on June 24, 2017, 07:02:15 pm

Is there any way Illinois could draw Mike Bost out of office in IL-12?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Strudelcutie4427 on June 25, 2017, 01:58:50 pm

Is there any way Illinois could draw Mike Bost out of office in IL-12?

probably not. South Illinois trended hard republican so unless they draw an abomination MD-3 type district from E. St. Louis to Springfield and branching to Peoria and Champaign i cant see it happening

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Gass3268 on June 25, 2017, 02:50:49 pm

Is there any way Illinois could draw Mike Bost out of office in IL-12?

probably not. South Illinois trended hard republican so unless they draw an abomination MD-3 type district from E. St. Louis to Springfield and branching to Peoria and Champaign i cant see it happening

Actually, that's what I'm hoping they do, but replace Peoria with Bloomington.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Arch on June 30, 2017, 07:53:27 pm

Is there any way Illinois could draw Mike Bost out of office in IL-12?

probably not. South Illinois trended hard republican so unless they draw an abomination MD-3 type district from E. St. Louis to Springfield and branching to Peoria and Champaign i cant see it happening

Actually, that's what I'm hoping they do, but replace Peoria with Bloomington.

Democrats have to start gerrymandering aggressively until we can get fair districts. As it stands, it's lopsided.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Oryxslayer on June 30, 2017, 07:58:22 pm

I was under the impression that if Democrats have total control of redistricting in 2020, they were going to cut one of IL- 12 and IL -13 and take the most Democratic parts of the two districts and make one slight D favored district in the South, No?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: krazen1211 on July 02, 2017, 02:48:30 pm

Is there any way Illinois could draw Mike Bost out of office in IL-12?

probably not. South Illinois trended hard republican so unless they draw an abomination MD-3 type district from E. St. Louis to Springfield and branching to Peoria and Champaign i cant see it happening

The Dems also need to save votes for Bustos.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: catographer on August 30, 2017, 04:39:49 pm

I hope a new DRA-like program is developed. DRA is continuously disintegrating into obsolete-ness. Each new version of browsers stops supporting DRA; at this point is too old. Will no longer work for my computer :(

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Seattle on October 02, 2017, 11:31:09 pm

Some very important news I saw on Twitter from Realistic Idealist:Apparently 2012 AND 2016 presidential election data will be making their way on to DRA shortly!

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Lok on October 03, 2017, 12:25:40 am

Some very important news I saw on Twitter from Realistic Idealist:Apparently 2012 AND 2016 presidential election data will be making their way on to DRA shortly!

Guess I posted in the wrong area... can confirm this is happening.

()

Unfortunately, the results map is still based on 2008 and it can't give you a specific 2016 result. I like the PVI calculator, but not every state has one, which forces you to base things on 2008 results and intuition about trends since then.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on November 22, 2017, 05:38:08 pm

Map of states with 2012/2016 PVI currently available.()

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on December 04, 2017, 05:10:39 pm

so far, are there any states that are forced to change congressional district maps from 2016-2018 based on court orders?

if so, which states?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on December 05, 2017, 09:25:17 pm

so far, are there any states that are forced to change congressional district maps from 2016-2018 based on court orders?

if so, which states?

I think the only state that is being litigated is Texas, and maybe Maryland.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida changed for 2016.

Alabama has changed its legislative districts for 2018, and special elections are being held on the new boundaries. North Carolina is finishing up its new districts to be used in 2018. Virginia's are still being litigated, but could change for 2019. Texas is still being litigated.

so far, are there any states that are forced to change congressional district maps from 2016-2018 based on court orders?

if so, which states?

I think the only state that is being litigated is Texas, and maybe Maryland.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida changed for 2016.

Alabama has changed its legislative districts for 2018, and special elections are being held on the new boundaries. North Carolina is finishing up its new districts to be used in 2018. Virginia's are still being litigated, but could change for 2019. Texas is still being litigated.

Isn't Alabama's state house map going to be re-litigated?

Probably not in time for 2018 though.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on December 08, 2017, 02:37:40 pm

so far, are there any states that are forced to change congressional district maps from 2016-2018 based on court orders?

if so, which states?

I think the only state that is being litigated is Texas, and maybe Maryland.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida changed for 2016.

Alabama has changed its legislative districts for 2018, and special elections are being held on the new boundaries. North Carolina is finishing up its new districts to be used in 2018. Virginia's are still being litigated, but could change for 2019. Texas is still being litigated.

Isn't Alabama's state house map going to be re-litigated?

Probably not in time for 2018 though.

Not likely.

The oral arguments before the SCOTUS were interesting. One issue was whether the plaintiffs had filed against individual districts, as is required. The justices were arguing about whether they should be rewriting the briefs for the plaintiffs. The opinion actually has a concordance showing mentions of individual districts. Anyhow, the district court had ruled on the basis of the overall plan.

On remand, the district court was told to look at each individual district. So the court let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, and then they issued a very long opinion explaining whether each individual district had been gerrymandered - explaining whether split precincts were done so on a racial basis or not. What the issue in recent cases is whether race has predominated or not. A lot of the black-majority districts were 10-20% underpopulated. They had been deliberately underpopulated in 2000, and in rural areas particularly had lost population. The legislature had tried to maintain the black percentage, which is hard to do. If a district is 60% black, the neighboring areas are likely less than 60% black, so you have to be quite selective.

Eventually the district court ruled that in some districts, race had predominated. While the legislature was getting ready to fix those districts, the SCOTUS issued their decision in Bethune-Hill saying that the district court in that Virginia case had applied the wrong standard in determining racial predominance. Bethune-Hill was issued in March 2017. The Alabama legislature realized that if the district court applied the new standard to Alabama, they would likelu have to redraw all the black majority districts, so they did.

The district court approved the new map, which won't make material changes in the composition of the legislature. The plaintiffs tried to add some new complaints such a political gerrymandering, which the district court rejected. The case was closed about a month ago.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on December 21, 2017, 04:25:01 pm

If there were 5821 seats in the House, and DC + the 5 territories had full representation, the 2010 census gives this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dH4Q1RLd1SlwkS59VIqWwe41cwJnog8C-QhjQhLgA_U/edit?usp=sharing)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 21, 2017, 04:45:06 pm

If there were 5821 seats in the House, and DC + the 5 territories had full representation, the 2010 census gives this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dH4Q1RLd1SlwkS59VIqWwe41cwJnog8C-QhjQhLgA_U/edit?usp=sharing)

Is it possible to create a D-leaning seat in Wyoming with 10 seats? Pretty sure an R-leaning seat in Hawaii is still impossible with 25 seats (or DC with 11 seats, VT with 12 seats).

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on December 21, 2017, 05:04:39 pm

If there were 5821 seats in the House, and DC + the 5 territories had full representation, the 2010 census gives this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dH4Q1RLd1SlwkS59VIqWwe41cwJnog8C-QhjQhLgA_U/edit?usp=sharing)

Is it possible to create a D-leaning seat in Wyoming with 10 seats? Pretty sure an R-leaning seat in Hawaii is still impossible with 25 seats (or DC with 11 seats, VT with 12 seats).

Probably not.

I doubt it would even be possible to create an Obama 2008 seat.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 21, 2017, 10:11:14 pm

If there were 5821 seats in the House, and DC + the 5 territories had full representation, the 2010 census gives this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dH4Q1RLd1SlwkS59VIqWwe41cwJnog8C-QhjQhLgA_U/edit?usp=sharing)

Is it possible to create a D-leaning seat in Wyoming with 10 seats? Pretty sure an R-leaning seat in Hawaii is still impossible with 25 seats (or DC with 11 seats, VT with 12 seats).

Probably not.

I doubt it would even be possible to create an Obama 2008 seat.

Answered my own question. On 10 seats, I managed to create an Obama 2008 district consisting of all of Laramie and the southwestern part of Cheyenne, connected via a few rural precincts (along I-80, so it's not a wildly unreasonable district actually), but it's only 51-46 Obama so can't be described as D-leaning. I got within about 50 votes of creating another Obama 2008 district centered on Jackson Hole and taking in Lander and then the least McCain precincts I could find around the area but couldn't quite get it over the hump. Lander is surprisingly competitive for a random rural Wyoming town. Anyone know why? It's near a reservation but seems to have a Native population in the high single-digits, typical for any area in Wyoming not on a reservation.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2017, 05:41:07 am

If there were 5821 seats in the House, and DC + the 5 territories had full representation, the 2010 census gives this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dH4Q1RLd1SlwkS59VIqWwe41cwJnog8C-QhjQhLgA_U/edit?usp=sharing)

Does that algorithm always produce the correct number of seats?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on January 06, 2018, 04:34:56 pm

I just calculated this.

For the difference between the most populated district and the least populated district to go below a factor of 1.5, there would need to be at least 843 seats (843rd seat is DE-03).

It falls again at 930 seats (SD-03).

Another low at 1394 seats (MT-05).

Another low at 1588 seats (ND-04).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.25 at 1608 seats (RI-06).

Another new low at 1705 seats (VT-04).

Another new low at 1741 seats (ME-08).

Another new low at 1753 seats (NH-08).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.2 at 1941 seats (AK-05).

Another new low at 2075 seats (SD-06).

Another new low at 2226 seats (DE-07).

Another new low at 2260 seats (ID-12).

I do not feel like calculating any more.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on January 06, 2018, 09:25:00 pm

For the difference between the most populated district and the least populated district to go below a factor of 1.5, there would need to be at least 843 seats (843rd seat is DE-03).

It falls again at 930 seats (SD-03).

Another low at 1394 seats (MT-05).

Another low at 1588 seats (ND-04).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.25 at 1608 seats (RI-06).

Another new low at 1705 seats (VT-04).

Another new low at 1741 seats (ME-08).

Another new low at 1753 seats (NH-08).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.2 at 1941 seats (AK-05).

Another new low at 2075 seats (SD-06).

Another new low at 2226 seats (DE-07).

Another new low at 2260 seats (ID-12).

I do not feel like calculating any more.

The population of a state's districts is a stair step which steps down every time a state gains an additional district. The average population per district for the USA is a reciprocal function

POPUSA / n

If you combine the two to get a state's districts relative to the USA average you get a sawtooth within a decaying envelope. Just before a state gains a seat, the ratio of the state's districts to the USA average reaches a maximum, before plunging to a minimum when the extra seat is awarded, and then gradually increasing as the USA average declines.

The sawtooth is quasi-periodic. The period varies because of the ranking method results in a state gaining a district a bit too soon, or a bit late; and in addition the divisors for Huntington-Hill are not precisely evenly spaced.

Combining the sawtooth for all 50 states, you get a url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)]beating[/url] effect. Sometimes most states are near the USA average, and sometine, there might be one state near a maximum, and another near a minimum.

If one were interested in reducing the interstate variation in district size, a "best" size of the House might be chosen. To avoid too much variation, the search window could be limited to perhaps 95% to 110% of the previous apportionment. You don't want to reduce too much, since this would mean too many states losing representation, and you don't want to expand the size of the House too much.

If the metric were to maximize the number of districts within 5% of the USA average, the apportionment for 2020 might be 450 districts, with 404 (89.8%) within 5% variation. If we were interested in interstate equality, we would use Dean's method (harmonic mean) rather than Huntington-Hill (geometric mean).

All of these are extremely data dependent, since the period for each state is POPUSA / POPSTATE, and these ratios change over time.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on January 08, 2018, 08:44:53 am

Instead of apportioning representatives one could apportion presidential electors, with each state guaranteed three electors. And then the electors could be divided into 2 senators and the rest representatives. This would tend to increase the representation of larger states, and compensate for the underrepresentation of larger states in the senate.

These estimates of representative are based on using Huntington-Hill and projected 2020 populations that are based on the last two years of change in the estimated population.

California would be apportioned 63 of 535 electors, giving them 61 representatives and two senators. 61 is 8 greater than the projected 53 of 435 representatives for the 2020 Census.

Trump won the electoral vote 306:232, under the projected 2020 apportionment he would gain seven electors in 5 states (AZ, FL(2), NC, MT, TX(2)), while losing five electors in five states (AL, MI, OH, PA, WV) for a net gain of two. Clinton wold gain in two states (CO and OR), while losing in four states (IL, MN, NY, and RI) for a net loss of two.

This would produce a 308:230 in a 2024 match-up of Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton.

Under the presidential elector apportionment, Trump would gain 13 electors in six states (TX(6), FL(3), PA, OH, GA, and MI) and lose 16 electors in 15 states (AZ, WI, SC, LA, KY, OK, UT, IA, AR, MS, KS, NE(2), ID, WV, and MT) for a net loss of three. Clinton would gain 12 electors in three states (CA(8), NY(3), and IL) and lose nine electors in eight states (CO, OR, CT, NV, NM(2), HI, NH, and ME) for a net gain of three.

This would produce a 305:233 elector college result in a Trump:Clinton match-up.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: catographer on January 08, 2018, 08:28:31 pm

Instead of apportioning representatives one could apportion presidential electors, with each state guaranteed three electors. And then the electors could be divided into 2 senators and the rest representatives. This would tend to increase the representation of larger states, and compensate for the underrepresentation of larger states in the senate.

That's actually bloody brilliant; a fantastic idea. I support that reform! It's modest, even Republicans could get behind it (it benefits Trump in the EC after all).

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on January 09, 2018, 02:09:24 am

Instead of apportioning representatives one could apportion presidential electors, with each state guaranteed three electors. And then the electors could be divided into 2 senators and the rest representatives. This would tend to increase the representation of larger states, and compensate for the underrepresentation of larger states in the senate.

That's actually bloody brilliant; a fantastic idea. I support that reform! It's modest, even Republicans could get behind it (it benefits Trump in the EC after all).

If the Supreme Court ruled commissions unconstitutional, Democrats benefit. They could draw CA, NJ, WA and possibly NY IL CO MN VA NV after 2020. States like MI WI FL OH PA AZ could possibly have a Democratic Governor with a veto pen as well.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on September 03, 2018, 02:33:26 pm

Something of note, is that if NY-11 connected Staten Island to Queens instead of to Brooklyn, it could have a PVI at about D+04 or D+05 (tested this months ago, just posted it now so memory not perfect).

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: jimrtex on September 04, 2018, 03:30:14 am

Something of note, is that if NY-11 connected Staten Island to Queens instead of to Brooklyn, it could have a PVI at about D+04 or D+05 (tested this months ago, just posted it now so memory not perfect).

Richmond, Kings, and Rockland were in a district at one time.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Tintrlvr on September 04, 2018, 06:15:38 am

Something of note, is that if NY-11 connected Staten Island to Queens instead of to Brooklyn, it could have a PVI at about D+04 or D+05 (tested this months ago, just posted it now so memory not perfect).

Before the 90s redistricting, Staten Island was connected directly to Manhattan (via the ferry link). That gets you to D+10-ish.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Senator YE on November 02, 2018, 12:20:27 pm

Does anyone have a lite D gerrymander of Nevada? I’m assuming. The rural parts of NV-04 will all be ceded to CD-02 come 2022 since Clark County is growing so rapidly. Should allow a potential D trifecta enough wiggle roo. To make NV-03 like D+5 or so. I can possibly make a map sometime next week that takes into account population. Estimates, but I was wondering if anyone had a map that has 3 safe-ish D seats in Clark County

I have a few on my computer that I'll post here when I get home. Basically you need to carve up Henderson or attach urban Las Vegas with rural areas. You can get something like 2 D+3 seats and a D+5 seat.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on November 02, 2018, 02:07:52 pm

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Strudelcutie4427 on November 02, 2018, 02:35:42 pm

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

That would probably be too hard given the obscenely large precinct sizes in Esmeralda, Mineral, and Nye. Those precincts are bigger than some states

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on November 02, 2018, 03:17:25 pm

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

That would probably be too hard given the obscenely large precinct sizes in Esmeralda, Mineral, and Nye. Those precincts are bigger than some states

There are no laws preventing the splitting of precincts, even if DRA cannot do such a thing. They could literally make an extremely small strip right along the border that takes 0 people.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Senator YE on November 02, 2018, 11:32:11 pm

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

In theory doable but the NV Dems would never do such a thing (and it'd probably cause Dems to tank upstate).

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Senator YE on November 02, 2018, 11:36:11 pm

Does anyone have a lite D gerrymander of Nevada? I’m assuming. The rural parts of NV-04 will all be ceded to CD-02 come 2022 since Clark County is growing so rapidly. Should allow a potential D trifecta enough wiggle roo. To make NV-03 like D+5 or so. I can possibly make a map sometime next week that takes into account population. Estimates, but I was wondering if anyone had a map that has 3 safe-ish D seats in Clark County

()

This doesn't even look too bad. Green is northern part of the state and is R+8. Purple is D+3 and blue and red are D+5.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Virginiá on November 17, 2018, 12:20:09 am

Just curious, but how likely is it a newly unified Democratic govt somewhere out there tries to change the maps before 2020?

I looked up Illinois and New Mexico, and http://redistricting.lls.edu says both of them appear to allow Congressional redraws but not legislative. These are both states where Democrats would have an incentive to shore up certain districts (or in IL's case, try to soften others up as well).

Not sure if any of them have ever tried doing this within the past few decades, but Illinois is the easiest to picture trying if it is in fact possible.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Everything Burns... on February 28, 2019, 12:29:07 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Zaybay on February 28, 2019, 12:30:49 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Everything Burns... on February 28, 2019, 12:32:36 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Well, sure, but is there a map accomplishing the above that could realistically get through the committee?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Zaybay on February 28, 2019, 12:34:00 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Well, sure, but is there a map accomplishing the above that could realistically get through the committee?

Most likely no. The best that could pass the commission is a Blue seat is gone and an R seat like Nunez's seat becomes really close.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Gass3268 on February 28, 2019, 12:41:47 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Well, sure, but is there a map accomplishing the above that could realistically get through the committee?

Most likely no. The best that could pass the commission is a Blue seat is gone and an R seat like Nunez's seat becomes really close.

Most of the population loss is in the Northeast part of the state. It's possible that CA-01 could get ripped apart with 2, 3 and 4 taking the scraps.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Zaybay on February 28, 2019, 02:31:18 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Well, sure, but is there a map accomplishing the above that could realistically get through the committee?

Most likely no. The best that could pass the commission is a Blue seat is gone and an R seat like Nunez's seat becomes really close.

Most of the population loss is in the Northeast part of the state. It's possible that CA-01 could get ripped apart with 2, 3 and 4 taking the scraps.

The problem with that idea is that you are ripping apart an R seat. The commission tries to make competitive seats and respects the minority party to a degree. They would not take another seat from the GOP.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Gass3268 on February 28, 2019, 06:22:33 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Well, sure, but is there a map accomplishing the above that could realistically get through the committee?

Most likely no. The best that could pass the commission is a Blue seat is gone and an R seat like Nunez's seat becomes really close.

Most of the population loss is in the Northeast part of the state. It's possible that CA-01 could get ripped apart with 2, 3 and 4 taking the scraps.

The problem with that idea is that you are ripping apart an R seat. The commission tries to make competitive seats and respects the minority party to a degree. They would not take another seat from the GOP.

Then it might be the 3rd.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Idaho Conservative on March 11, 2019, 02:03:52 am

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

Due to the fact that a commission makes the maps in CA, although its rather easily influenced, the most likely result would be a loss of a D seat.

Well, sure, but is there a map accomplishing the above that could realistically get through the committee?

Most likely no. The best that could pass the commission is a Blue seat is gone and an R seat like Nunez's seat becomes really close.

Most of the population loss is in the Northeast part of the state. It's possible that CA-01 could get ripped apart with 2, 3 and 4 taking the scraps.

The problem with that idea is that you are ripping apart an R seat. The commission tries to make competitive seats and respects the minority party to a degree. They would not take another seat from the GOP.

Then it might be the 3rd.

Yeah that would make sense. Could shift CA-4 west. Give up the mountains and take in Yuba, Sutter, Colusa, and Glenn, making it a central valley/exurban Sacramento district. Also keep in mind if the citizenship question makes it on the census, biggest population losses come from the valley and socal. I could see a seat in LA county being ripped up if there's an undercount of hispanics. Maybe CA-40?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Speaker of the Lincoln Council S019 on March 20, 2019, 11:08:58 pm

Do we think that Republicans are likely to draw Jim Cooper out of a seat following 2020? It is really easy to carve up Nashville given how Republican the surrounding districts are (and since Nashville is actually only moderately Democratic-leaning itself).

I don't know if I'd call 60-34 a moderately Democratic leaning county, but yes. We can probably assume that unless the Supreme Court rules partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional the Nashville, Louisville, and maybe Kansas City seats will be ripped apart.

Louisville cannot be gerrymandered, Anne Northup was the last stand there and Louisville got bluer and bluer until it voted out Anne Northup, Kansas City will make one of the Western MO seats competitive. Out of these, Nashville is probably the most feasible, but I don't think Republicans want to gerrymander Democratic cities and create dummymanders, as they did in NJ, VA, TX, and GA

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Cassandra on April 01, 2019, 07:59:47 pm

Does anyone have maps for Georgia after the 2020 census?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Sol on June 28, 2019, 02:24:45 pm

Btw, just realized there's an Oregon Redistricting Thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=135528.0) which should probably be added to the OP.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: lfromnj on June 28, 2019, 03:11:37 pm

Do we think that Republicans are likely to draw Jim Cooper out of a seat following 2020? It is really easy to carve up Nashville given how Republican the surrounding districts are (and since Nashville is actually only moderately Democratic-leaning itself).

I don't know if I'd call 60-34 a moderately Democratic leaning county, but yes. We can probably assume that unless the Supreme Court rules partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional the Nashville, Louisville, and maybe Kansas City seats will be ripped apart.

Louisville cannot be gerrymandered, Anne Northup was the last stand there and Louisville got bluer and bluer until it voted out Anne Northup, Kansas City will make one of the Western MO seats competitive. Out of these, Nashville is probably the most feasible, but I don't think Republicans want to gerrymander Democratic cities and create dummymanders, as they did in NJ, VA, TX, and GA

Ky03 is Clinton +15 and Ky 4 and Ky 2 are Trump +36 and Trump +40. Easily able to combine all for something around Trump +20 on average. Safe R.

Problem for the GOP is the KY constitution forbids more county splitting than necessary which Ky 03 can only be made to around Clinton+8 or something like that so you might as well pack it so everyone is happy.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nyvin on July 22, 2019, 09:50:31 pm

Looking at the Twin Cities MN Metro, I think a least change map is actually quite possible for 2020 with 7 districts. The 7 county area has enough population for 3.87 districts as of the 2018 estimates (and growing faster than the rest of the state), so keeping MN-2 going southeast is actually perfect to fill in the rest.

2018 Estimates:

Anoka County

353813

Hennepin County

1259428

Total

1613241

Districts

2.01253373

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ramsey County

550210

Washington County

259201

Total

809411

Districts

1.00974804

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dakota County

425423

Carver County

103551

Scott County

147381

Rice County

66523

Goodhue County

46403

Wabasha County

21645

Total

810926

Districts

1.011638018

Both Hennepin districts already go into Anoka county anyway, so it makes sense that the rest of Anoka is added in with them. Anoka and Hennepin will be just slightly over 2 districts in 2020.

Ramsey and Washington likewise are already together right now, and in 2020 they'll be almost exactly make 1 district together.

That leaves Dakota, Scott, and Carver in the 7 county Metro, which can be put together and add the rest of Rice county (already in MN-2 partially) and keep Goodhue and Wabasha for a bit above 1 district.

That leaves 4 districts in the Metro (or pretty close to it) and you end up with something like this:

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: lfromnj on July 22, 2019, 11:06:40 pm

()

This is what I would expect an aggresive MNDFL to draw. 4 likely/Safe Metro districts + one duluth/rochester district. And if Peterson survives 2020 he can get a district that mostly resembles Basically forces Stauber and Hagedorn to run against each other in a primary to face a democrat in a very mildy Tossup/Lean Republican district.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Epaminondas on July 23, 2019, 08:26:38 am

If the goal of the CA commission is to make competitive seats, why does it not follow a map similar to 538's redistricting?https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/california/#Competitive

Currently the 7 Safe GOP seats seem like a fig leaf.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on July 23, 2019, 12:45:28 pm

If the goal of the CA commission is to make competitive seats, why does it not follow a map similar to 538's redistricting?https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/california/#Competitive

Currently the 7 Safe GOP seats seem like a fig leaf.

Many of the seats that were supposed to be competitive turned Safe D in 2016.Some of the seats that were supposed to be Safe R even turned competitive or Safe D in 2016.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nyvin on July 23, 2019, 01:38:13 pm

If the goal of the CA commission is to make competitive seats, why does it not follow a map similar to 538's redistricting?https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/california/#Competitive

Currently the 7 Safe GOP seats seem like a fig leaf.

Competitiveness isn't specifically spelled out in the commission's goals, communities of interest is instead. A lot of the GOP seats like the one in Northeastern CA and some of the San Diego/Orange County seats were either directly built as COI's or were surrounded by COI's and just got shaped by them.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nyvin on July 23, 2019, 09:39:51 pm

Obviously the numbers aren't going to be precise, but the general idea is putting Salem and Eugene in one district. The numbers actually work pretty well for the most part, Washington and Yamhill are almost exactly one district with 2018 numbers.

Multnomah County

811880

Clackamas County

416075

Clatsop County

39764

Columbia County

52377

Tillamook County

26787

Total

1346883

Districts

1.928382593

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Washington County

597695

Yamhill County

107002

Total

704697

Districts

1.008940961

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eugene (City)

171,245

Salem (City)

173,442

Benton County

92101

Lincoln County

49388

Polk County

85234

Total

571,410

Districts

0.818108995

I think the northwest rural counties are a bit ugly, but not terrible.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: 🌐 on July 24, 2019, 12:33:36 am

Obviously the numbers aren't going to be precise, but the general idea is putting Salem and Eugene in one district. The numbers actually work pretty well for the most part, Washington and Yamhill are almost exactly one district with 2018 numbers.

Multnomah County

811880

Clackamas County

416075

Clatsop County

39764

Columbia County

52377

Tillamook County

26787

Total

1346883

Districts

1.928382593

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Washington County

597695

Yamhill County

107002

Total

704697

Districts

1.008940961

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eugene (City)

171,245

Salem (City)

173,442

Benton County

92101

Lincoln County

49388

Polk County

85234

Total

571,410

Districts

0.818108995

I think the northwest rural counties are a bit ugly, but not terrible.

This map underestimates Portland's population growth and needlessly chops up communities of interest (Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, as well as the Northwest Coast should be attached to Washington County; Marion should be left intact, and looping East Salem, Corvallis, and the City of Eugene into one district is disengenuous. Also, this is clearly a 4D-2R map, when a 5D-1R map can easily and fairly be drawn while taking into account simpler county combos (Clackamas and Marion being an obvious one) just like this:()

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Oryxslayer on July 24, 2019, 08:06:18 am

Also, considering how Redistricting is done in Oregon, the state Dems would be fools to not draw 5-1. The only reason they may not is if there are not enough Dem votes left for DeFazio and Schrader and a second Republican pack gets drawn using the Red precincts from the Williamette valley. Look to Bend to get involved in the seats to the west of the Cascades as a starter.

Also, this goes for everything in DRA - treat 2008 numbers with a grain of salt. They are hopelessly outdated and fail to reflect the current coalitions. The simplest way to get better data, without learning GIS, is to open two windows simultaneously and draw your districts from the 2016 map in a 2010 map which has PVI numbers.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Nyvin on July 24, 2019, 04:14:19 pm

Most of Columbia's population is in the southeast and connected rather well to Metro Portland, I think it fits great with Multnomah.

I don't think bringing Bend into the western districts is feasible, since Oregon state law prohibits "dividing Communities of Common Interests" and at some point (2000..?) all the counties east of the Cascades (including Hood River) are a COI.

Clatsop and Tillamook probably don't go all that well with Multnomah, but they don't go well with anything really, even Washington. Right now Clatsop is with OR-1 and Tillamook is in OR-5, which really doesn't make much sense, but again nothing really does with either one. If anything they probably should all be grouped with a "Coastal Oregon" district going down to Lane County. They're all pretty isolated.

Probably the biggest problem is that Salem and Eugene would both want to have their own districts, rather than be lumped together. Since Eugene has more Dem voters it would pretty much dominate the primary, thus the district. Salem voters would hate that.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Sol on July 25, 2019, 07:58:50 am

Obviously the numbers aren't going to be precise, but the general idea is putting Salem and Eugene in one district. The numbers actually work pretty well for the most part, Washington and Yamhill are almost exactly one district with 2018 numbers.

Multnomah County

811880

Clackamas County

416075

Clatsop County

39764

Columbia County

52377

Tillamook County

26787

Total

1346883

Districts

1.928382593

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Washington County

597695

Yamhill County

107002

Total

704697

Districts

1.008940961

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eugene (City)

171,245

Salem (City)

173,442

Benton County

92101

Lincoln County

49388

Polk County

85234

Total

571,410

Districts

0.818108995

I think the northwest rural counties are a bit ugly, but not terrible.

This map underestimates Portland's population growth and needlessly chops up communities of interest (Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, as well as the Northwest Coast should be attached to Washington County; Marion should be left intact, and looping East Salem, Corvallis, and the City of Eugene into one district is disengenuous. Also, this is clearly a 4D-2R map, when a 5D-1R map can easily and fairly be drawn while taking into account simpler county combos (Clackamas and Marion being an obvious one) just like this:()

Isn't the purple district a little questionable for Democrats?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: 🌐 on July 25, 2019, 12:32:07 pm

Obviously the numbers aren't going to be precise, but the general idea is putting Salem and Eugene in one district. The numbers actually work pretty well for the most part, Washington and Yamhill are almost exactly one district with 2018 numbers.

Multnomah County

811880

Clackamas County

416075

Clatsop County

39764

Columbia County

52377

Tillamook County

26787

Total

1346883

Districts

1.928382593

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Washington County

597695

Yamhill County

107002

Total

704697

Districts

1.008940961

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eugene (City)

171,245

Salem (City)

173,442

Benton County

92101

Lincoln County

49388

Polk County

85234

Total

571,410

Districts

0.818108995

I think the northwest rural counties are a bit ugly, but not terrible.

This map underestimates Portland's population growth and needlessly chops up communities of interest (Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, as well as the Northwest Coast should be attached to Washington County; Marion should be left intact, and looping East Salem, Corvallis, and the City of Eugene into one district is disengenuous. Also, this is clearly a 4D-2R map, when a 5D-1R map can easily and fairly be drawn while taking into account simpler county combos (Clackamas and Marion being an obvious one) just like this:()

Isn't the purple district a little questionable for Democrats?

It's D+6 or so.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Oryxslayer on July 25, 2019, 03:26:00 pm

Obviously the numbers aren't going to be precise, but the general idea is putting Salem and Eugene in one district. The numbers actually work pretty well for the most part, Washington and Yamhill are almost exactly one district with 2018 numbers.

Multnomah County

811880

Clackamas County

416075

Clatsop County

39764

Columbia County

52377

Tillamook County

26787

Total

1346883

Districts

1.928382593

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Washington County

597695

Yamhill County

107002

Total

704697

Districts

1.008940961

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eugene (City)

171,245

Salem (City)

173,442

Benton County

92101

Lincoln County

49388

Polk County

85234

Total

571,410

Districts

0.818108995

I think the northwest rural counties are a bit ugly, but not terrible.

This map underestimates Portland's population growth and needlessly chops up communities of interest (Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, as well as the Northwest Coast should be attached to Washington County; Marion should be left intact, and looping East Salem, Corvallis, and the City of Eugene into one district is disengenuous. Also, this is clearly a 4D-2R map, when a 5D-1R map can easily and fairly be drawn while taking into account simpler county combos (Clackamas and Marion being an obvious one) just like this:()

Isn't the purple district a little questionable for Democrats?

It's D+6 or so.

When I drew the purple district in DRA, I got R+2 12/16 CPVI. Like I said DON"T USE OBAMA 08 NUMBERS! HORRIBLY OUTDATED! Obama+6 in '08 isn't even that strong of a result.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: 🌐 on July 25, 2019, 03:40:05 pm

Obviously the numbers aren't going to be precise, but the general idea is putting Salem and Eugene in one district. The numbers actually work pretty well for the most part, Washington and Yamhill are almost exactly one district with 2018 numbers.

Multnomah County

811880

Clackamas County

416075

Clatsop County

39764

Columbia County

52377

Tillamook County

26787

Total

1346883

Districts

1.928382593

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Washington County

597695

Yamhill County

107002

Total

704697

Districts

1.008940961

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eugene (City)

171,245

Salem (City)

173,442

Benton County

92101

Lincoln County

49388

Polk County

85234

Total

571,410

Districts

0.818108995

I think the northwest rural counties are a bit ugly, but not terrible.

This map underestimates Portland's population growth and needlessly chops up communities of interest (Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, as well as the Northwest Coast should be attached to Washington County; Marion should be left intact, and looping East Salem, Corvallis, and the City of Eugene into one district is disengenuous. Also, this is clearly a 4D-2R map, when a 5D-1R map can easily and fairly be drawn while taking into account simpler county combos (Clackamas and Marion being an obvious one) just like this:()

Isn't the purple district a little questionable for Democrats?

It's D+6 or so.

When I drew the purple district in DRA, I got R+2 12/16 CPVI. Like I said DON"T USE OBAMA 08 NUMBERS! HORRIBLY OUTDATED! Obama+6 in '08 isn't even that strong of a result.

I know. I just assumed this area was trending heavily D. Regardless, you can just swap out east Multnomah County for Sellwood and Lents and shore it up.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Epaminondas on August 28, 2019, 12:41:30 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

The problem with that idea is that you are ripping apart an R seat. The commission tries to make competitive seats and respects the minority party to a degree. They would not take another seat from the GOP.

Why do you think this?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Zaybay on August 28, 2019, 05:32:04 pm

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat? What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?

The problem with that idea is that you are ripping apart an R seat. The commission tries to make competitive seats and respects the minority party to a degree. They would not take another seat from the GOP.

Why do you think this?

Well, multiple reasons. CA is redistricted by a commission which prioritizes groups of interest and not political parties. This has the aftereffect of the commission usually creating competitive maps with a good amount of R seats due to how geographically condensed R voters are becoming in the state.

Packing Nunes and McCarthy into the same district really doesnt make sense at all when looking at voter groups and communities of interest. The North of the San Joaquin valley that Nunes reside in has a highly different makeup when compared to the South where McCarthy is. While Nunes represents a minority-plurality seat, McCarthy is still representing a White Majority seat. While Nunes represents Fresno suburbs McCarthy represents the exurban and rural desert of the area. The two areas are vastly different, and if both were combined it would not be considered a seat where CoI was taken into account.

Theres also population to consider; the San Joaquin valley has room for more than 5 congressional seats, even when reducing the seat count from 53 to 52. Due to how the commission loves CoI, that means there must be 5 seats in the valley. Combining Nunes and McCarthy would be basically impossible to do population-wise, instead if the map were to not include Nunes it would be because of a massive landswap between the valley seats that would include Nune's property. Drawing Nunes and McCarthy together basically doesnt work with current growth the valley has undergone.

The San Joaquin valley itself isnt likely for a seat merger. A more likely candidate would be LA, or the very North of the state(where the population has actually declined). Nunes and McCarthy should be appearing in congress together in 2022 unless either retire or Nunes loses.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: TrendsareUsuallyReal on September 15, 2019, 01:30:20 pm

Currently making a fair map of Texas that respects county lines and communities of interests as much as possible. Basically it would get really ugly for Republicans really quick based on population estimates. Democrats would have four seats in Dallas County alone, another safe seat in Tarrant County, a second swing seat in Tarrant County that voted for Trump and O'Rourke, three seats in the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA. Five seats in Harris County (two light blue, Dem-trending seats), one seat in Fort Bend County, two in Bexar County, one in El Paso County, and three south Texas Democratic seats (I cleaned up the ugly bacon strips and gave Hidalgo County its own seat, another seat is Cameron plus the remainder of Hidalgo, and another is Webb to southern Bexar). Another light blue seat in the Corpus Christi MSA plus the south Texas rurals. Only seat Republicans would gain is the successor to TX-23.

And the Collin County seat I'm drawing would have only been Trump +9. O'Rourke almost definitely won that.

So that's 20 Democratic seats and another 3 swing seats that are also trending Dem fast. Republicans better hope that they control the map drawing process indefinitely here since when the time comes that they don't, they're gonna lose a ton of seats in the metros

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: lfromnj on September 15, 2019, 03:15:56 pm

If you drawing a fair map you should draw it using 2016 and then estimate with the boundaries for 2010.

Population change is pretty big.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: TrendsareUsuallyReal on September 15, 2019, 04:14:08 pm

If you drawing a fair map you should draw it using 2016 and then estimate with the boundaries for 2010.

Population change is pretty big.

I know, I couldn't find the 2016 files though. So I basically left the urban seats underpopulated roughly 60k each.

And Republicans are hurt big time by geography I realized, particularly in Harris County. The Republicans are mostly clustered in northwest Harris County and the eastern part of the county. You basically have to gerrymander the county to give them more than two seats.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Skill and Chance on September 15, 2019, 04:22:31 pm

Currently making a fair map of Texas that respects county lines and communities of interests as much as possible. Basically it would get really ugly for Republicans really quick based on population estimates. Democrats would have four seats in Dallas County alone, another safe seat in Tarrant County, a second swing seat in Tarrant County that voted for Trump and O'Rourke, three seats in the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA. Five seats in Harris County (two light blue, Dem-trending seats), one seat in Fort Bend County, two in Bexar County, one in El Paso County, and three south Texas Democratic seats (I cleaned up the ugly bacon strips and gave Hidalgo County its own seat, another seat is Cameron plus the remainder of Hidalgo, and another is Webb to southern Bexar). Another light blue seat in the Corpus Christi MSA plus the south Texas rurals. Only seat Republicans would gain is the successor to TX-23.

And the Collin County seat I'm drawing would have only been Trump +9. O'Rourke almost definitely won that.

So that's 20 Democratic seats and another 3 swing seats that are also trending Dem fast. Republicans better hope that they control the map drawing process indefinitely here since when the time comes that they don't, they're gonna lose a ton of seats in the metros

The way the process works in Texas, Republicans are already assured of being able to gerrymander the state legislature in 2021. If Democrats flip the lower house (where a majority of seats were won by Beto and more than 3% left of the state), they can force a court map for congress for 2022, but the lower house would be favored to flip back R under the new map (there are limitations on county splits so it's not a sure thing) unless 2022 is a Dem wave. Mid-decade congressional redistricting is legal in Texas and has been done before. Republicans would just gerrymander the congressional map in 2023 instead of 2021 unless Democrats flipped TX-GOV in 2022.

The best medium/long term recourse for TX Dems would be through the state supreme court, which is elected statewide R vs. D and 3/9 seats are up every 2 years. If they are routinely winning statewide while losing the legislature due to gerrymandering/equal CVAP districting, taking control of the state supreme court and getting an PA/NC style decision throwing out the maps sometime during 2023-27 is plausible.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Oryxslayer on September 15, 2019, 05:01:36 pm

TX is going to be weird because there there is a contingent of the statee GOP party, who like the AR dems of 2010, think that 2018 was a one off. Unless the dems flip the lower chamber or do something else seriously scary like win court seats or get the 38 EVs (requires a wave) that contingent has just as much a chance of deciding the fate of the maps as the 'fear' contingent, who would probably surrender a few more seats to the dems than they currently have (24, 22, new 37 in Austin) to lock down the other 22 even as the state continues to move leftward. the fear contingent would want to draw something similar to the CA Map from 2000 which works with the incumbent dems to produce a map that can survive the incoming demographic transformation while giving incumbents what they want.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Skill and Chance on September 15, 2019, 05:48:09 pm

TX is going to be weird because there there is a contingent of the statee GOP party, who like the AR dems of 2010, think that 2018 was a one off. Unless the dems flip the lower chamber or do something else seriously scary like win court seats or get the 38 EVs (requires a wave) that contingent has just as much a chance of deciding the fate of the maps as the 'fear' contingent, who would probably surrender a few more seats to the dems than they currently have (24, 22, new 37 in Austin) to lock down the other 22 even as the state continues to move leftward. the fear contingent would want to draw something similar to the CA Map from 2000 which works with the incumbent dems to produce a map that can survive the incoming demographic transformation while giving incumbents what they want.

That's a good point, and they might very well make a deal on an NJ 2011/CA 2001 style incumbent protection map in the House (and this group also might block CVAP redistricting for fear of driving Dem turnout through the roof in the 2022 midterm.

The interesting part is the state legislature. Any deadlock, whether because of a Dem lower house or because the GOP can't agree on a map in either chamber, sends redistricting to a backup commission of the Speaker of the TX House, the Land Commissioner, the Comptroller, the AG, and the LG with majority rule to adopt a map. So this commission is guaranteed to be at least 4R/1D, but 4 of them are facing statewide reelection in just 2 years in what could be a worse than 2018 environment in TX if Trump has been reelected. They will have a strong incentive to be less explicitly partisan in drawing districts than the state legislature was in 2011.

I don't think a serious R gerrymander is getting through lower house even if Republicans retain a narrow majority there. There will be a group that wants to go for broke and thinks they can get back to 2/3rds, and there will be a group that wants to make a deal with enough Dems to override an Abbott veto and look bipartisan for the statewide voters and for the state courts that may flip by mid-decade. IDK who wins. Worth noting the Republican speaker was elected with some Dem support and some Tea Party R opposition.

In the state senate, a hard R gerrymander is much easier as 1. the districts are yuge, bigger than US House seats, and 2. the state constitutional restrictions don't apply there.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Oryxslayer on September 15, 2019, 07:33:22 pm

TX is going to be weird because there there is a contingent of the statee GOP party, who like the AR dems of 2010, think that 2018 was a one off. Unless the dems flip the lower chamber or do something else seriously scary like win court seats or get the 38 EVs (requires a wave) that contingent has just as much a chance of deciding the fate of the maps as the 'fear' contingent, who would probably surrender a few more seats to the dems than they currently have (24, 22, new 37 in Austin) to lock down the other 22 even as the state continues to move leftward. the fear contingent would want to draw something similar to the CA Map from 2000 which works with the incumbent dems to produce a map that can survive the incoming demographic transformation while giving incumbents what they want.

That's a good point, and they might very well make a deal on an NJ 2011/CA 2001 style incumbent protection map in the House (and this group also might block CVAP redistricting for fear of driving Dem turnout through the roof in the 2022 midterm.

The interesting part is the state legislature. Any deadlock, whether because of a Dem lower house or because the GOP can't agree on a map in either chamber, sends redistricting to a backup commission of the Speaker of the TX House, the Land Commissioner, the Comptroller, the AG, and the LG with majority rule to adopt a map. So this commission is guaranteed to be at least 4R/1D, but 4 of them are facing statewide reelection in just 2 years in what could be a worse than 2018 environment in TX if Trump has been reelected. They will have a strong incentive to be less explicitly partisan in drawing districts than the state legislature was in 2011.

I don't think a serious R gerrymander is getting through lower house even if Republicans retain a narrow majority there. There will be a group that wants to go for broke and thinks they can get back to 2/3rds, and there will be a group that wants to make a deal with enough Dems to override an Abbott veto and look bipartisan for the statewide voters and for the state courts that may flip by mid-decade. IDK who wins. Worth noting the Republican speaker was elected with some Dem support and some Tea Party R opposition.

In the state senate, a hard R gerrymander is much easier as 1. the districts are yuge, bigger than US House seats, and 2. the state constitutional restrictions don't apply there.

Agree with you on the state senate. Hell, if dems take the lower state house, then things may get even weirder, with situations like Dems trading away their voice on congressional and senate maps for unilateral action to gerry up the state house, similar to what VA dems did in 2010 in regards to the state senate. TX has a lot of potential map outcomes, depending on how the state votes in 2020 and who is elected to each of the three chambers.

But I seriously think people undervalue the 'one off' or ignorant contingency of the TX GOP right now. Like how the party drove a minority local Tarrant legislator out of the party, and how some people are pushing for a primary of pro-Choice Sarah Davis, despite the fact that she's the only reason why her state house seat is still red.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Skill and Chance on September 15, 2019, 08:26:48 pm

TX is going to be weird because there there is a contingent of the statee GOP party, who like the AR dems of 2010, think that 2018 was a one off. Unless the dems flip the lower chamber or do something else seriously scary like win court seats or get the 38 EVs (requires a wave) that contingent has just as much a chance of deciding the fate of the maps as the 'fear' contingent, who would probably surrender a few more seats to the dems than they currently have (24, 22, new 37 in Austin) to lock down the other 22 even as the state continues to move leftward. the fear contingent would want to draw something similar to the CA Map from 2000 which works with the incumbent dems to produce a map that can survive the incoming demographic transformation while giving incumbents what they want.

That's a good point, and they might very well make a deal on an NJ 2011/CA 2001 style incumbent protection map in the House (and this group also might block CVAP redistricting for fear of driving Dem turnout through the roof in the 2022 midterm.

The interesting part is the state legislature. Any deadlock, whether because of a Dem lower house or because the GOP can't agree on a map in either chamber, sends redistricting to a backup commission of the Speaker of the TX House, the Land Commissioner, the Comptroller, the AG, and the LG with majority rule to adopt a map. So this commission is guaranteed to be at least 4R/1D, but 4 of them are facing statewide reelection in just 2 years in what could be a worse than 2018 environment in TX if Trump has been reelected. They will have a strong incentive to be less explicitly partisan in drawing districts than the state legislature was in 2011.

I don't think a serious R gerrymander is getting through lower house even if Republicans retain a narrow majority there. There will be a group that wants to go for broke and thinks they can get back to 2/3rds, and there will be a group that wants to make a deal with enough Dems to override an Abbott veto and look bipartisan for the statewide voters and for the state courts that may flip by mid-decade. IDK who wins. Worth noting the Republican speaker was elected with some Dem support and some Tea Party R opposition.

In the state senate, a hard R gerrymander is much easier as 1. the districts are yuge, bigger than US House seats, and 2. the state constitutional restrictions don't apply there.

Agree with you on the state senate. Hell, if dems take the lower state house, then things may get even weirder, with situations like Dems trading away their voice on congressional and senate maps for unilateral action to gerry up the state house, similar to what VA dems did in 2010 in regards to the state senate. TX has a lot of potential map outcomes, depending on how the state votes in 2020 and who is elected to each of the three chambers.

I don't think that's likely. Why wouldn't Abbott just veto and send it to the 4R/1D backup commission? They would get another swing at the congressional map in 2023 after contesting the lower house on an R drawn map. It's more plausible that the commission draws a polite, compact R leaning map for fear of statewide blowback in 2022, but it just isn't enough for them to take it back because the state is changing too fast and they get divided control for the decade and a court map that sticks. Or they do narrowly get the lower house back, only for Governor Allred to veto the 2023 congressional gerrymander. Or 1 side gets a trifecta in 2023 but the state supreme court blocks mid decade redistricting.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: DeSantis2024 on September 16, 2019, 07:13:56 pm

Republicans are going to draw TX-32 as a vote sink in 2021,TX-23 is going to remain largely the same but a more republican piece of El Paso will be added,IF republicans somehow hold TX-23 they’re planning on screwing Chip Roy,but since it seems TX-23 will flip they’ll lock up Roy,and finally Travis county will be getting a dem vote sink.........

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Skill and Chance on September 17, 2019, 07:42:41 am

Actually, I'm not sure I like the AR Dems comparison. Romney got >60% in AR in 2012. If the 2024 Dem candidate got >60% in Texas while losing the election, how the maps are drawn will be completely irrelevant and Dems would control everything there by the 2026 election at the latest.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: #Solid4096 on September 17, 2019, 11:28:40 am

Actually, I'm not sure I like the AR Dems comparison. Romney got >60% in AR in 2012. If the 2024 Dem candidate got >60% in Texas while losing the election, how the maps are drawn will be completely irrelevant and Dems would control everything there by the 2026 election at the latest.

Still possible to draw a D+4 seat in Arkansas that would have voted for both Obama12 and Clinton16 with whole Counties, and a D+5 or D+6 seat by splitting a County. I think it was more the psychological aspect of drawing a gerrymander where you intend your party to still not win a majority of seats that made AR Dems feel like they had to risk it big.

Currently making a fair map of Texas that respects county lines and communities of interests as much as possible. Basically it would get really ugly for Republicans really quick based on population estimates. Democrats would have four seats in Dallas County alone, another safe seat in Tarrant County, a second swing seat in Tarrant County that voted for Trump and O'Rourke, three seats in the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA. Five seats in Harris County (two light blue, Dem-trending seats), one seat in Fort Bend County, two in Bexar County, one in El Paso County, and three south Texas Democratic seats (I cleaned up the ugly bacon strips and gave Hidalgo County its own seat, another seat is Cameron plus the remainder of Hidalgo, and another is Webb to southern Bexar). Another light blue seat in the Corpus Christi MSA plus the south Texas rurals. Only seat Republicans would gain is the successor to TX-23.

And the Collin County seat I'm drawing would have only been Trump +9. O'Rourke almost definitely won that.

So that's 20 Democratic seats and another 3 swing seats that are also trending Dem fast. Republicans better hope that they control the map drawing process indefinitely here since when the time comes that they don't, they're gonna lose a ton of seats in the metros

Republicans are going to draw TX-32 as a vote sink in 2021,TX-23 is going to remain largely the same but a more republican piece of El Paso will be added,IF republicans somehow hold TX-23 they’re planning on screwing Chip Roy,but since it seems TX-23 will flip they’ll lock up Roy,and finally Travis county will be getting a dem vote sink.........

That would be pretty stupid, considering it's pretty easy to draw a map where those districts are all safe (at least with 36 districts, idk about 39)

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: The Mikado on November 16, 2019, 10:18:55 am

Republicans are going to draw TX-32 as a vote sink in 2021,TX-23 is going to remain largely the same but a more republican piece of El Paso will be added,IF republicans somehow hold TX-23 they’re planning on screwing Chip Roy,but since it seems TX-23 will flip they’ll lock up Roy,and finally Travis county will be getting a dem vote sink.........

That would be pretty stupid, considering it's pretty easy to draw a map where those districts are all safe (at least with 36 districts, idk about 39)

You're not factoring in population shifts re: reapportionment. Also, the GOP needs to draw a map that has at least a chance of still holding through the 2020s. No one in 2011 thought TX-07 or TX-32 were anything less than Safe R.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: Bernie Sanders would be a Menshevik in Europe on December 30, 2019, 02:08:46 pm

With the new Census estimates, my estimates for redistricting numbers are ()Same general northeastern and rust belt drain to the south.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on January 11, 2020, 12:56:19 am

I feel like a map this messy would backfire hard in some way. Either it ends up becoming a dummymander or it gets thrown out by a court.

If it were to get thrown out by a court, that would be a plus, because it would set precedent against partisan gerrymandering that would also throw out GOP gerrymandering. So Dems should be super-aggressive, with the goal of disenfranchising every Republican in Illinois (or else coming as close to that as possible). Likewise in states like MD they should draw an 8-0 map to rig the elections.

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on January 11, 2020, 08:22:52 pm

There should be more districts going into Chicagoland, but you are on the right track.

You can already draw 2 Dem seats downstate (the 2 squiggles). You can't really get up to a 15-2 map without far worse boundaries and annoying a lot of incumbent D congressmen.

I was trying to say what should happen (as egregious as possible of a gerrymander should be drawn, and if it gets struck down for partisan gerrymandering, that is win-win), not what would necessarily in fact happen.

I wouldn't trust that downstate Dem districts will necessarily stay Dem - it is safer to draw them into Chicagoland than to assume that they won't become more Republican (in particular Cheri Bustos' district).

There should be more districts going into Chicagoland, but you are on the right track.

You can already draw 2 Dem seats downstate (the 2 squiggles). You can't really get up to a 15-2 map without far worse boundaries and annoying a lot of incumbent D congressmen.

I was trying to say what should happen (as egregious as possible of a gerrymander should be drawn, and if it gets struck down for partisan gerrymandering, that is win-win), not what would necessarily in fact happen.

I wouldn't trust that downstate Dem districts will necessarily stay Dem - it is safer to draw them into Chicagoland than to assume that they won't become more Republican (in particular Cheri Bustos' district).

My two downstate districts are still D+4 and D+6. The 13th voted for Clinton by 12 points. In 2016 it actually swung about half a point to Clinton. You can argue the 17th could be vulnerable, however Clinton still won it by 5 points. If you're really concerned about the 17th you can simply give it Rockford as well to shore it up, though that does make all the Chicagoland districts a bit weaker.

for those rustbelt states that are losing population or have stagnant population, is there any pattern to what's losing population? e.g., if it's mostly in rural areas in states that republicans have gerrymandered anyways, is it the case that Dems probably will keep the few seats they have and GOP will lose the bulk of these seats?

Title: Re: US House Redistricting: General
Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on January 13, 2020, 07:18:48 pm